Services

South Oxhey drug dealer Jon Barrett given 'final chance'

A faulty brake light led the police to catching a Watford skunk cannabis dealer who had 100 customers.

Jon Barrett, 30, was driving his girlfriend in a Ford Fiesta when it was stopped on Blackwell Drive, Oxhey, St Albans Crown Court heard today.

Prosecutor Daniel Siong said the officers could smell cannabis and asked Barrett if he had any drugs. He told them: "I am a recreational user. I have to look after my mum."

In the boot, where the spare wheel should be, a brown bag was found. Inside was a plastic bag which contained 137 grams of skunk. When asked about it, Barrett said: "It's all for my own use mate."

A Samsung mobile phone was examined and text messages revealed the defendant had 100 customers for his drugs. The police also seized £377.70 from him.

He had been stopped at 1.30pm on July 28 and was taken to Watford Police Station. At his home in Muirfield Road, South Oxhey, the police found four cannabis grinders on a cabinet, along with deal bags. In a chest of drawers there was a second bag containing 138 grams of cannabis.

Mr Siong said the street value of the 275 grams of skunk cannabis was £2,750.

Barrett pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a Class B drug with intent to supply. He had not been in trouble since 2005, but had six previous convictions.

Richard Storey, defending, said Barrett had been in full time work since leaving school at 16, but had left to become the carer for his disabled mother. He handed the judge a letter from his mother explaining what he does for her.

Mr Storey said he had begun dealing cannabis because he was struggling financially. "He admits it was a mistake and did not consider the consequences. He is very remorseful. He did not think it through," he said.

Judge Andrew Bright QC told Barrett: "You were involved in relatively large scale commercial dealings and supplying to a range of customers. I am taking into consideration the fact that you are the carer for your mother, if it wasn't for that you would be going straight down the stairs.

"I am passing a suspended sentence out of compassion for your mother, not for sympathy for you.

"This is your final chance. Any further offending and you will be back before me and I will be locking you up. You have been given a chance."

He passed a nine month jail sentence suspended for two years, ordered him to complete 200 hours' unpaid work within the next 12 months and abide by a four month curfew between 9.30pm and 6.30am.

Comments

Popeonarope
5:45pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.

Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.Popeonarope

Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.

Score: 25

tiger bay
6:21pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Popeonarope wrote…

Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.

It must be difficult to be as perfect as you Your Papal Highness...

[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote:
Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.[/p][/quote]It must be difficult to be as perfect as you Your Papal Highness...tiger bay

Popeonarope wrote…

Another grubby drug dealer who should be in prison let off by the soft judicial system. Maybe its the reason why so many deal in this muck; they know they will get a soft judge who is not fit to serve.

It must be difficult to be as perfect as you Your Papal Highness...

Score: -17

watfordrick
7:42pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Not been caught since 2005 and only a faulty headline nabbed him. Someone once said to me the smallest mistake sometimes casts the longest shadow, but I guess in this case it didn't.

Not been caught since 2005 and only a faulty headline nabbed him. Someone once said to me the smallest mistake sometimes casts the longest shadow, but I guess in this case it didn't.watfordrick

Not been caught since 2005 and only a faulty headline nabbed him. Someone once said to me the smallest mistake sometimes casts the longest shadow, but I guess in this case it didn't.

Score: 7

bigmeuprudeboy
7:48pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Selling some skunk, big deal.bigmeuprudeboy

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Score: -5

Nascot
8:40pm Tue 7 Jan 14

"I am a recreational user. I have to look after my mum."
A hilarious excuse. I too looked after my mum and never once found the need to supply drugs.

'He had not been in trouble since 2005', I think what he meant to say was 'I've not been caught dealing drugs since 2005'

"I am a recreational user. I have to look after my mum."
A hilarious excuse. I too looked after my mum and never once found the need to supply drugs.
'He had not been in trouble since 2005', I think what he meant to say was 'I've not been caught dealing drugs since 2005'Nascot

"I am a recreational user. I have to look after my mum."
A hilarious excuse. I too looked after my mum and never once found the need to supply drugs.

'He had not been in trouble since 2005', I think what he meant to say was 'I've not been caught dealing drugs since 2005'

Score: 17

LSC
10:48pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Six previous, but has to look after his dear old Mum so avoids prison. Didn't I hear lines like that in The Sweeney in the '70s? Thought we might have moved on.
If you want to look after dear old Mum, try to avoid drug dealing and breaking the law, seven times that he was actually convicted for.

We all know that 7 convictions normally means quite a few Cautions and a few dropped cases. Career criminal, not a career carer.

Six previous, but has to look after his dear old Mum so avoids prison. Didn't I hear lines like that in The Sweeney in the '70s? Thought we might have moved on.
If you want to look after dear old Mum, try to avoid drug dealing and breaking the law, seven times that he was actually convicted for.
We all know that 7 convictions normally means quite a few Cautions and a few dropped cases. Career criminal, not a career carer.LSC

Six previous, but has to look after his dear old Mum so avoids prison. Didn't I hear lines like that in The Sweeney in the '70s? Thought we might have moved on.
If you want to look after dear old Mum, try to avoid drug dealing and breaking the law, seven times that he was actually convicted for.

We all know that 7 convictions normally means quite a few Cautions and a few dropped cases. Career criminal, not a career carer.

Score: 10

LSC
11:06pm Tue 7 Jan 14

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
Selling some skunk, big deal.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.
More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.LSC

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

Score: 5

Honest Rog
4:51am Wed 8 Jan 14

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.Honest Rog

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

Score: -5

Popeonarope
8:10am Wed 8 Jan 14

Honest Rog wrote…

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

He is a grubby drug dealer living off earnings from selling a narcotic to people who are to clever or stupid to grow their own. He uses and supplies an illegal substance and the report indicates a significant amount of money is generated by doing so. Presumably he doesnt grow his own so he buys it from other grubby drug dealers who may be dealing in other substances to... regardless, after six previous charges i would expect a punishment that is fitting.
Of course alcohol is a cause of more obvious crime etc. This is not the point, how many people drive while on this muck, operate heavy machinery etc.

[quote][p][bold]Honest Rog[/bold] wrote:
I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.[/p][/quote]He is a grubby drug dealer living off earnings from selling a narcotic to people who are to clever or stupid to grow their own. He uses and supplies an illegal substance and the report indicates a significant amount of money is generated by doing so. Presumably he doesnt grow his own so he buys it from other grubby drug dealers who may be dealing in other substances to... regardless, after six previous charges i would expect a punishment that is fitting.
Of course alcohol is a cause of more obvious crime etc. This is not the point, how many people drive while on this muck, operate heavy machinery etc.Popeonarope

Honest Rog wrote…

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

He is a grubby drug dealer living off earnings from selling a narcotic to people who are to clever or stupid to grow their own. He uses and supplies an illegal substance and the report indicates a significant amount of money is generated by doing so. Presumably he doesnt grow his own so he buys it from other grubby drug dealers who may be dealing in other substances to... regardless, after six previous charges i would expect a punishment that is fitting.
Of course alcohol is a cause of more obvious crime etc. This is not the point, how many people drive while on this muck, operate heavy machinery etc.

Score: 10

LSC
10:59am Wed 8 Jan 14

Honest Rog wrote…

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course it is not victimless or non-violent. True, there was no mention of violence in this case, but how do you think drug dealers cope with people who don't pay? Pop down the police station? Small claims court?

Drug dealers love to give credit because they can charge interest and it gives them control. When a person cannot pay, they use violence.
The person still has to pay the debt, and very often turns to theft, or other crimes like dealing themselves.

Another trick is to push harder drugs onto existing customers in order to get them dependent on something more expensive. This happens more than some people think. Nobody has ever got up one morning and thought: "I might try Heroin today" after never having touched any drugs before. They would also need to know where to buy it, which only comes from the 'network'. No, your local dope dealer might not sell it, but he will definately know a man who does and will happily hook you up.

Sounds like a lot of harm and victims to me.

[quote][p][bold]Honest Rog[/bold] wrote:
I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.[/p][/quote]Of course it is not victimless or non-violent. True, there was no mention of violence in this case, but how do you think drug dealers cope with people who don't pay? Pop down the police station? Small claims court?
Drug dealers love to give credit because they can charge interest and it gives them control. When a person cannot pay, they use violence.
The person still has to pay the debt, and very often turns to theft, or other crimes like dealing themselves.
Another trick is to push harder drugs onto existing customers in order to get them dependent on something more expensive. This happens more than some people think. Nobody has ever got up one morning and thought: "I might try Heroin today" after never having touched any drugs before. They would also need to know where to buy it, which only comes from the 'network'. No, your local dope dealer might not sell it, but he will definately know a man who does and will happily hook you up.
Sounds like a lot of harm and victims to me.LSC

Honest Rog wrote…

I'll have to shout loudly in order that you lot on the moral high ground can hear but here goes: No victims. No violence, except in the fertile imagination of some of the above posters. This guy was involved in a bit of recreational mind numbing and, no doubt, was helping like-minded users. So fecking what!
Before the pious ones on here remind me that prolonged use of skunk can lead to feelings of insecurity and paranoia let me say that I've seen this and would advise anyone thinking of taking up this recreation to desist. I do however respect anyone's right to indulge in a bit of victimless escapism. In the interest of balance how about evaluating the effects of alcohol on society. In the past month I would hazard that the ratio of anti-social violent crime committed by those under the influence of (legal) alcohol would outnumber those committed by happy dope users by at least 20:1.
And no, two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course it is not victimless or non-violent. True, there was no mention of violence in this case, but how do you think drug dealers cope with people who don't pay? Pop down the police station? Small claims court?

Drug dealers love to give credit because they can charge interest and it gives them control. When a person cannot pay, they use violence.
The person still has to pay the debt, and very often turns to theft, or other crimes like dealing themselves.

Another trick is to push harder drugs onto existing customers in order to get them dependent on something more expensive. This happens more than some people think. Nobody has ever got up one morning and thought: "I might try Heroin today" after never having touched any drugs before. They would also need to know where to buy it, which only comes from the 'network'. No, your local dope dealer might not sell it, but he will definately know a man who does and will happily hook you up.

Sounds like a lot of harm and victims to me.

Score: 20

[deleted]
12:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
Selling some skunk, big deal.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.
More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.[/p][/quote]LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.
You really are a moron of the highest possible order...WatfordBandB

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.

You really are a moron of the highest possible order...

Score: -9

CaptainPC
1:52pm Wed 8 Jan 14

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

Yawn. LSC is taking the moral high ground. Next a bear will sh!t in the woods.

[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
Selling some skunk, big deal.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.
More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.[/p][/quote]Yawn. LSC is taking the moral high ground. Next a bear will sh!t in the woods.CaptainPC

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

Yawn. LSC is taking the moral high ground. Next a bear will sh!t in the woods.

Score: -10

[deleted]
2:03pm Wed 8 Jan 14

[deleted]

WatfordBandB says...
LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.
You really are a moron of the highest possible order...
So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.Taxidermist

WatfordBandB says...

LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.

You really are a moron of the highest possible order...

So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.

Score: 6

bigmeuprudeboy
2:34pm Wed 8 Jan 14

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.

[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
Selling some skunk, big deal.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.
More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.[/p][/quote]LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.bigmeuprudeboy

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.

Score: -10

bigmeuprudeboy
2:38pm Wed 8 Jan 14

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.

Obviously my post was let down by posting 'no' rather than 'know..

But you still know nowt!

[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote:
Selling some skunk, big deal.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.
More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.[/p][/quote]LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.[/p][/quote]Obviously my post was let down by posting 'no' rather than 'know..
But you still know nowt!bigmeuprudeboy

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

LSC wrote…

bigmeuprudeboy wrote…

Selling some skunk, big deal.

Yes, it is.
It is possible that a guy is being stabbed right now over this. The person who supplies this fella doesn't have a market right now, and some big guys won't like that. That money just got cut off, and you don't go to small claims court. They paid a LOT to smuggle this stuff in, or rent a house to grow it themselves. They will require payback.
Yes, they could pimp out some more working girls, or push more in some local playgrounds, but that tends to be hard work.

More likely, they will ask him to pay back the lost stock for his carelessness in getting caught. Suppliers are generally less generous than judges. Assuming he keeps his nose clean legally, that money will have to come from his Carers Allowance. Or Mum's savings.

LOL, get over yourself mate you no nowt.

Obviously my post was let down by posting 'no' rather than 'know..

But you still know nowt!

Score: -10

[deleted]
3:39pm Wed 8 Jan 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]Taxidermist[/bold] wrote:
WatfordBandB says...
LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.
You really are a moron of the highest possible order...
So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.[/p][/quote]So you are anti name calling but he is a "low life ignoramus."
Em??CaptainPC

Taxidermist wrote…

WatfordBandB says...

LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.

You really are a moron of the highest possible order...

So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.

So you are anti name calling but he is a "low life ignoramus."

Em??

Score: -1

[deleted]
3:52pm Wed 8 Jan 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]Taxidermist[/bold] wrote:
WatfordBandB says...
LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.
You really are a moron of the highest possible order...
So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.[/p][/quote]I don’t think either yourself or LSC would be able to understand a serious calculated and pertinent response from my good self so I am talking to people like you on your level, low.
Now shut up you complete prat, you have the IQ of a dead retarded Panda…WatfordBandB

Taxidermist wrote…

WatfordBandB says...

LSC, you do not know what on earth you are talking about, you know absolutely nothing, this last comment from your pathetic self has just proved this.

You really are a moron of the highest possible order...

So you disagree with something that someone says, your best response would be to put up a reasoned argument to support your views or beliefs rather than resorting to insulting name calling which just makes you look like a low life ignoramus in the eyes of a lot of the people reading this article. In this particular case I would tend to support the case put forward by LCS than that put forward by your good self.

I don’t think either yourself or LSC would be able to understand a serious calculated and pertinent response from my good self so I am talking to people like you on your level, low.

Now shut up you complete prat, you have the IQ of a dead retarded Panda…

Score: -10

LSC
10:52pm Wed 8 Jan 14

I really don't mind all the name calling, because it simply reinforces my points for anybody on the fence on the issue.
The best the pro drug lobby can come up with is insults. I don't know if any of them actually use drugs of course, but it is fairly unusual (although not unknown) for people to support something so strongly that they have no experience of themselves.

As a non-drug user I put forward a point of view (and it contains many facts) and the best they can do is shout 'moron' at me in return, rather than any counter argument.
I think that says everything you need to know about illegal drug use.

I really don't mind all the name calling, because it simply reinforces my points for anybody on the fence on the issue.
The best the pro drug lobby can come up with is insults. I don't know if any of them actually use drugs of course, but it is fairly unusual (although not unknown) for people to support something so strongly that they have no experience of themselves.
As a non-drug user I put forward a point of view (and it contains many facts) and the best they can do is shout 'moron' at me in return, rather than any counter argument.
I think that says everything you need to know about illegal drug use.LSC

I really don't mind all the name calling, because it simply reinforces my points for anybody on the fence on the issue.
The best the pro drug lobby can come up with is insults. I don't know if any of them actually use drugs of course, but it is fairly unusual (although not unknown) for people to support something so strongly that they have no experience of themselves.

As a non-drug user I put forward a point of view (and it contains many facts) and the best they can do is shout 'moron' at me in return, rather than any counter argument.
I think that says everything you need to know about illegal drug use.

Score: 5

gloryhornet4
12:02am Thu 9 Jan 14

The beak had it right IMO. The criminal has to keep his nose clean or go down, which is a challenge with a client base of 100. Had it been class A he would have been hammered and may still be if he is caught again in the next 24 months.

The beak has had to consider the con's mother and I do believe he is a genuine carer.

We have 90,000 in clink and each one costs us about £130 a day to keep them there. The courts have pressure put upon them to keep the prison bill down for us as taxpayers and many judges have said typically in tax and benefit cheat cases they would send these crooks to jail, but for the cost to the taxpayer and also losing the opportunity to claw back the stolen money.

I am not soft on sentencing, only upon us poor sods the taxpayers who pay a fortune to lock people up. If every man woman and child had to send about £60 a year to HMRC to pay for prisons we would be furious However, we are doing this already!

The beak had it right IMO. The criminal has to keep his nose clean or go down, which is a challenge with a client base of 100. Had it been class A he would have been hammered and may still be if he is caught again in the next 24 months.
The beak has had to consider the con's mother and I do believe he is a genuine carer.
We have 90,000 in clink and each one costs us about £130 a day to keep them there. The courts have pressure put upon them to keep the prison bill down for us as taxpayers and many judges have said typically in tax and benefit cheat cases they would send these crooks to jail, but for the cost to the taxpayer and also losing the opportunity to claw back the stolen money.
I am not soft on sentencing, only upon us poor sods the taxpayers who pay a fortune to lock people up. If every man woman and child had to send about £60 a year to HMRC to pay for prisons we would be furious However, we are doing this already!gloryhornet4

The beak had it right IMO. The criminal has to keep his nose clean or go down, which is a challenge with a client base of 100. Had it been class A he would have been hammered and may still be if he is caught again in the next 24 months.

The beak has had to consider the con's mother and I do believe he is a genuine carer.

We have 90,000 in clink and each one costs us about £130 a day to keep them there. The courts have pressure put upon them to keep the prison bill down for us as taxpayers and many judges have said typically in tax and benefit cheat cases they would send these crooks to jail, but for the cost to the taxpayer and also losing the opportunity to claw back the stolen money.

I am not soft on sentencing, only upon us poor sods the taxpayers who pay a fortune to lock people up. If every man woman and child had to send about £60 a year to HMRC to pay for prisons we would be furious However, we are doing this already!

Score: 5

[deleted]
8:40pm Thu 9 Jan 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote:
I really don't mind all the name calling, because it simply reinforces my points for anybody on the fence on the issue.
The best the pro drug lobby can come up with is insults. I don't know if any of them actually use drugs of course, but it is fairly unusual (although not unknown) for people to support something so strongly that they have no experience of themselves.
As a non-drug user I put forward a point of view (and it contains many facts) and the best they can do is shout 'moron' at me in return, rather than any counter argument.
I think that says everything you need to know about illegal drug use.[/p][/quote]Yep you are right mate, you are a moron xbigmeuprudeboy

LSC wrote…

I really don't mind all the name calling, because it simply reinforces my points for anybody on the fence on the issue.
The best the pro drug lobby can come up with is insults. I don't know if any of them actually use drugs of course, but it is fairly unusual (although not unknown) for people to support something so strongly that they have no experience of themselves.

As a non-drug user I put forward a point of view (and it contains many facts) and the best they can do is shout 'moron' at me in return, rather than any counter argument.
I think that says everything you need to know about illegal drug use.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here